Bunkers that serve more than one hole, do they provide

[Patrick_Mucci]

Design, Construction and Maintainance economies ?

If so, why don't we see far more of them ?

Has the liability issue encroached too far into the design process ?

St George's has a number of them.

And, the really neat aspect of the bunkering scheme is that greenside bunkers on one hole can serve as fairway bunkers for other holes.

Elsewhere, fairway bunkers are shared.

Why don't we see more of these features ?

From an economic perspective they would seem to be an ideal feature.

[Adam Clayman]

never mind

[Tom_Doak]

A greenside bunker serving as a fairway hazard on another hole is the DEFINITION of a liability problem.

Also, if a cluster of bunkers is in play on two fairways at the same time, it won't be in play for either hole 20 years later.

[JR Potts]

Aren't the church-pew bunkers at Oakmont are perfect example of this?  They seem to have stood the test of time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A greenside bunker serving as a fairway hazard on another hole is the DEFINITION of a liability problem.

Wouldn't that depend upon the size and orientation of the bunker ?

Also, if a cluster of bunkers is in play on two fairways at the same time, it won't be in play for either hole 20 years later.

Bunkers, some of which that have been in existance for 80 + years at courses like Oakmont, Garden City, Hollywood and St George's would seem to refute that statement

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

The proximity of the fw bunker to the green would pose the biggest safety issue.  If you pushed two fw closer together just to make one bunker, they might be too close.

The church pews were extended at both ends by Fazio before the recent US Open to keep them relevant.

The biggest problem with combining bunkers, IMHO, is that they need to tip different directions on opposing holes to be visible and provide a lip to hinder escape.  The pews get over this by being extended great lengths.  Ross has a big U shaped bunker at Inverness serving two holes, but its not smaller than two bunkers would be, its just connected at the end.  So, its actually a little larger than non connected bunkers would be.

FWIW, I once lost a design commission based on a preliminary rendering I did that showed a cluster of bunkers between two parallel and same direction fw, much like Inverness 1 and 10.  The committee commented on the safety issues, despite me saying the fw were as far apart as typical fw and the interview went downhill from there.........

[Andy Troeger]

Design, Construction and Maintainance economies ?

If so, why don't we see far more of them ?

Has the liability issue encroached too far into the design process ?

St George's has a number of them.

And, the really neat aspect of the bunkering scheme is that greenside bunkers on one hole can serve as fairway bunkers for other holes.

Elsewhere, fairway bunkers are shared.

Why don't we see more of these features ?

From an economic perspective they would seem to be an ideal feature.

Seems like it would be hard to have a greenside bunker in play on another hole without the green it was protecting also becoming in play. That in itself is enough of a liability issue for me to think any economic benefit is not worth it. The idea in general makes more sense on courses that don't get much play; busy public courses with lots of mediocre golfers out there would ramp up the liability issues.

[Andy Troeger]

One more thought added on to my last one...

You could certainly create a bunker that's large enough to separate holes sufficiently and decreases the liability issue, however, if the bunker is large enough to do that it would seem to eliminate much economic benefit from having to maintain the larger area of sand.

[DMoriarty]

A greenside bunker serving as a fairway hazard on another hole is the DEFINITION of a liability problem.

At Rustic there is a bunker back-right of the 5th green that also functions as fairway bunker for a very long and very off-line drive from the 2nd tee.   There are also bunkers right of the 2nd green that serve as fairway bunkers for the second shot on the par five 5th.  In both cases, the bunkers are only in play if the shots are very offline and these are usually rolling or bouncing by the time they get to the bunkers.

When I first played the course I thought this area might create liability issues, but I don't think that has been the case.   I really like the open feel of this portion of the course.  The shared areas add to both holes.   But it is the extreme width that makes it work. 

[tonyt]

One more thought added on to my last one...

You could certainly create a bunker that's large enough to separate holes sufficiently and decreases the liability issue, however, if the bunker is large enough to do that it would seem to eliminate much economic benefit from having to maintain the larger area of sand.

Well said.

Patrick, an example of greenside nest of bunkers on one hole and fairway on another is #14-15 at Kingston Heath. To achieve this, the nearest to each is rarely relevant to the other, and is an acre of multiple forms which would be far more expensive to maintain than if the hubris wasn't servicing two holes.

If a fairway bunker often in play and of moderate expense and maintenance cost was a greenside bunker on another hole and also often in play there, then by definition the green is in the firing line. I'll bet 99% of good examples of this on the planet are those built many years ago which haven't succumbed to modern radar.

The device is probably more reasonable if a client wants his own private track thats never going to have more than he and his friends on it.

[Tom_Doak]

David, Patrick:

We've actually built features that were in play on more than one hole, and we've also consulted on numerous courses that had such features.

However, that doesn't make the liability issues go away.  If anybody ever gets hit by a ball on any of the holes described, it will be the architect's fault.  That doesn't stop me from doing it occasionally where I think it will be safe, but it's always an issue.

[Gerry B]

just returned this evening from a 3 day trip to oakmont - the church pews between holes 3 and 4 are definitely in play on both holes as they complement the other bunkers located on the right of each respective hole's fairway.

 

[Wade Whitehead]

A greenside bunker serving as a fairway hazard on another hole is the DEFINITION of a liability problem.

Wouldn't that depend upon the size and orientation of the bunker ?

At Independence in Richmond, the same bunker complex serves the right side of the par four third fairway and the right boundary of the par three seventh.  It's down a slight incline from the seventh green, but can certainly come into play.  I've never considered the liability issue, but have seen balls in the bunker from both holes at the same time.

WW

[John Moore II]

I would think the very IDEA of a potential liability may sway people away from these things currently. A shared bunker is probably cheaper to design and construct, and MAY even be cheaper to maintain, even though its larger, depending on how its constructed. I think if the bunker is large, such as the Church Pews seem to be, the liability is reduced (though the fact that Oakmont sees very few golfers in a year, compared to a public facility, also reduces the liability) since the fairways are a good distance apart. But if the bunker is small and borders two narrow fairways, its a liability for sure. But like I said, the simple IDEA of liability MAY keep it from happening.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David, Patrick:

We've actually built features that were in play on more than one hole, and we've also consulted on numerous courses that had such features.

However, that doesn't make the liability issues go away.  If anybody ever gets hit by a ball on any of the holes described, it will be the architect's fault.  That doesn't stop me from doing it occasionally where I think it will be safe, but it's always an issue.

Tom Doak,

Is there an angle of deviation beyond which liability ceases ?

Especially with increased distances.

Recently, I saw two golfers who hit the ball a decent distance, hit high cuts that got caught in a left right wind, landing the drives in the middle of an adjacent fairway that was a good 60+ yards from the centerline of the intended fairway.

Interestingly enough, there was a shared bunker in between those fairways

[Philippe Binette]

I think it's the type of stuff thst looks great but can't really plan for it. You have to be out there and see if it works and you're comfortable from both fairways...

a great idea that could turn out really bad...

[Sean_A]

I seem to recall that North Berwick has greenside bunkers of #4 in play for Perfection.  I can't understand why this sort of situation doesn't work.  Sure its a dangerous situation, but that has nothing to do with the bunkering.  I don't recall anybody on this site ever going on about how dangerous this hole.  Perhaps NB is charmed.

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

at north berwick, the entire 4th green is in play and blind from the 14th... but it's north berwick

[Ally Mcintosh]

The obvious point here is that you can't compare 100 year old courses where there is no architect left to throw in jail with new builds in a litigious society gone mad...

Now if North Berwick Golf Club decided to hire an architect with a brief to make the course safe (God forbid), well then... we wouldn't have North Berwick anymore...

[Sean_A]

Its unfortunate that archies are in CYA mode these days.  However, it must be remembered, that even North Berwick charges an insurance premium per round/day.  I am not sure why folks would be more litigious if they were hit on a new course VS an old course.  Sure, an archie may be partly to blame, but it seems to me that if a course owner believed that there were undue risks involved in playing his course and he chose not to alter take precautions or fairly warn the patrons, then he could be deemed liable for incurred injuries.  Could anyone explain this why this wouldn't  be so? 

In any case, I don't see how placing bunkers in play for two holes increases the risk of anything.  If anything, bunkering could be seen as risk mitigation for injuries.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Its unfortunate that archies are in CYA mode these days.  However, it must be remembered, that even North Berwick charges an insurance premium per round/day.  I am not sure why folks would be more litigious if they were hit on a new course VS an old course.  Sure, an archie may be partly to blame, but it seems to me that if a course owner believed that there were undue risks involved in playing his course and he chose not to alter take precautions or fairly warn the patrons, then he could be deemed liable for incurred injuries.  Could anyone explain this why this wouldn't  be so? 

In any case, I don't see how placing bunkers in play for two holes increases the risk of anything.  If anything, bunkering could be seen as risk mitigation for injuries.

Ciao

I guess the owner would quite rightly state that he was not a professional in designing golf courses and could not be expected to be in a position to judge what is safe and not safe. He would say that in what he deemed problematic areas (such as the 2nd tee / 17th fairway), he has put up signage to help safety...

I don't expect people to seek damages any less on old courses than new courses... It's just finding the person to blame is more difficult...

As for placing the bunkers in play for two holes, by the very nature of that statement, it is almost admitting that there is not enough width between the two playing corridors unless you have a vast extended bunker (such as the church pews) which would actually be bigger and take more maintenance than two single bunkers... Those would be my thoughts...

Although in principle I do like the idea... and I'm sure I can think of other examples...

[Phil McDade]

The James Foulis-designed Bonnie Brook in Waukegan IL (1929) has a nice shared bunker between the parallel 9th and 18th holes -- kind of a three-leaf cloverleaf shape. The two holes cover some of the more interesting terrain at the course, and are both uphill and have somewhat-to-severely canted fairways, making each a strong hole. Trees separate the playing corridors, but the fairways have ample width and there is no real sense the trees are there merely to separate the two fairways. The holes' teeing areas are quite a bit apart, but the two fairways move toward one another so that the greensites can share the bunker. A few trees some 30-40 yards short of the shared bunker, probably planted for this reason, prevent probably all but the most errant shot from one fairway from landing on to the green of the adjacent hole.

Over in Scotland, the four little pot bunkers that litter the right side of the fairway on Machrihanish's acclaimed 1st hole are shared by the right-side of the fairway on the closing 18th there (they are probably more of a consideration for the stronger and better play on the 1st hole, and perhaps less so on the shortish par 4 18th).

[David_Tepper]

The course now under construction at Castle Stuart (west of Inverness) will have at least one fairway bunker shared by two holes. 

[Chris Kane]

Isn't sharing fairway bunkers not as dangerous as a greenside bunker shared with another fairway?

[Chris Kane]

I'm highly amused by the discussion of liability in this thread - not concern about someone being injured or killed, but about who would be economically responsible!